About a month ago, I helped a teacher at my school plan her trip on Delta SAN-ATH, via CVG and JFK (she is a Delta Premiere member). It was kind of fun showing her how the internet timetables work, and I helped her with flight schedules for internal Greece travel (Athens-Channia-Thessaloniki-Athens) on Olympic Airways.

Here's the question - with so many Delta flights from JFK to Europe, why is there not more of a concentration of domestic flights to/from JFK to connect? Yes, I realize that B6 has developed a significant hub there, and that Song is focusing on competing with that, but does Delta rely heavily on O&D passengers out of NYC as justification for keeping that many flights at JFK instead of CVG or ATL?

LGA and EWR are better situated to handle the domestic demand for NYC travel. So many of domestic routes would not work from JFK especially those to smaller sized markets.

But the more apt term for Delta's operation there is "gateway". They rely on local NYC demand to fill International flights and have feeder flights from many destinations to help out. But they don't really get into domestic connecting service.

One could argue that EWR is a gateway not a hub for CO because they rely so much on local O&D business. Even CO as big as they are does not connect many domestic passengers in EWR.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):with so many Delta flights from JFK to Europe, why is there not more of a concentration of domestic flights to/from JFK to connect?

Well JFK is more of international flights and then connecting them to their hubs and some other focus cities. Song is building up so I guess there is no need for DL to build up there to. As Song gets bigger at JFK, then DL will be International and flights to hubs. Not much else, probably a while away though.

There are many connections possible at JFK on DL. I know that Comair has numerous flights to many smaller cities to connect with DL's International bank at JFK. IND, CVG, RDU, PHL, STL, PIT, are just some examples.

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 1):LGA and EWR are better situated to handle the domestic demand for NYC travel. So many of domestic routes would not work from JFK especially those to smaller sized markets.

This really isn't true as evidenced by B6. LGA has a limited number of domestic cities that can be served due to the 1500nm perimeter rule. EWR is in NEW JERSEY...nuff said. But New York isn't really in the best location geographically to connect passengers on domestic flights. To answer the original question, I think DL just screwed the pooch on building up JFK and didn't do so until its territory was threatened/stolen by B6.

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 1):One could argue that EWR is a gateway not a hub for CO because they rely so much on local O&D business. Even CO as big as they are does not connect many domestic passengers in EWR.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 5):Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 1):
One could argue that EWR is a gateway not a hub for CO because they rely so much on local O&D business. Even CO as big as they are does not connect many domestic passengers in EWR.

Your kidding right?

I know, are you kidding, do you live in NY????? It is pretty big hub if you ask me, hint hundreds of flight to everywhere and the ads on every street in Manhattan.

It doesn't have anything to do with the size of CO's operation. It's big. But the domestic business to/from EWR primarily O&D, not connecting. So in that respect it's not a connecting hub. Internationally you could look at as a gateway. Not that calling it a hub is wrong. The do connect domestic passengers.

I think DL wants its passengers to double and tripple to connect to JFK-exclusive destinations like ATH - Athens, NCE - Nice and VCE - Venice. First I think that DL's transborder, intercontinental and express operations at JFK doesn't fit their network well. They are reminants of DL's (and Pan-Am's) long history. I think that DL's future at JFK is an all Song operation with limited flights to major transcontinental and sun destinations. I think it would make sense for DL to "sell" or swap these route athorities, their related slots (at destination airports) and some flight equiptmemt (like B767-300ERs) to friendly competitor CO. I think that more customers would benefit by having CO operate these routes from EWR than JFK.

Quoting Cslusarc (Reply 11):I think it would make sense for DL to "sell" or swap these route authorities, their related slots (at destination airports) and some flight equiptmemt (like B767-300ERs) to friendly competitor CO

Why would Delta do this??? Delta is doing just fine with their international gateway at JFK. Even without any connecting traffic, the O&D of NYC is enough. However, Delta does have many connecting opportunities with Song, Delta mainline, and Delta Connection. I have often wondered why Delta just doesn't start calling JFK a hub because of their large operation. I think in the coming years, Delta/Song will continue to build their presence at JFK.

Bigger isn't always better in this case. If DL does well with O&D at JFK, why would they need to add domestic feeder flights to JFK when they can feed the transatlantic flights out/in of CVG and ATL? It's all about profit, not size, and an airline can only do so much with the resources they have.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the availaiblity of slots at JFK during the peak hours when the transatlantic flights arrive and depart. It's my understanding that JFK can get very congested, but I am sure the NYC residents and airline employees can attest to the craziness of JFK when it is backed up. Anybody have any insight on the slot situation at JFK?

actually a great deal of CO's business in EWR is connecting business,,,thats why they can offer flights to secondary cities in Europe such as EDI and BRS...if O&D traffic was the primary source of passengers BA/AA/DL could and would add flts to these destinations...when you can consolidate 400 plus flights to feed these smaller cities local O&D traffic is not nearly as important...

Both Pan Am and TWA attempted to use JFK to feed passengers to Europe. But by the time PA and TW developed storng domestic feeder networks, airlines such as American (Chicago), Northwest (Boston and later Detroit), Delta (Atlanta), and Continetal (Newark) developed alternative gateways to Europe with much stronger connecting possibilies and the ability to avoid the infamous JFK customs agents. TWA and PA thus were primarily reliant on O&D to Europe from JFK, and these days with Continetal at EWR and US at PHL offering almost as many European options (I think Istanbul, Moscow and Athens are the only exclusive Delta cities left in Europe among US carriers) DL need not waste too much effort making JFK a major connecting facility. They do have flights from just about every major city even if they are RJ flights timed to connect with the European departures, and that is good enough.

You might want to inform Bruce Lakefield that he does not run a US carrier. I was under the impression that US Airways was, in fact, based in Arlington, Virginia, which is part of the United States, and flies nonstop from Philadelphia to Venice.

DL's operation at JFK is really not that shabby. In fact, if you take DL Mainline, Song, and Delta Connection together, the overall DL presence at JFK is the largest it has ever been. DL now offers nonstop service from JFK to 56 cities/airports (20 international-including YYZ, MEX- and 36 domestic-including SJU) through approx. 115 daily flights. The number of cities offered is more than any other carrier at JFK (including B6).

B6's development at JFK has helped DL tremendously as well in terms of developing JFK into a domestic-travel-friendly airport.

Quoting Delta4eva (Reply 12):Delta is doing just fine with their international gateway at JFK

Delta is not really doing "just fine" at all at JFK. International operations have shrunk over the years with more and more service being shifted to Atlanta. Between 2000 and 2004, DL has reduced JFK European city pairs from 20 to 13. Domestic operations like the transcons have not worked very well and are being now being tried on Song. JFK international flights are using DL's smallest equipment type, while Atlanta has sees both larger aircraft and additional frequencies on several city pairs.

In 2004, of DL 13, European cities serviced from JFK less then 25% had positive operating margins for the company, while in comparison all but a few of the Atlanta European services had either a positive or breakeven margin for the year.

The biggest beneficiary, and possible cause of Delta slide at JFK has been Continental. The carrier has seen strong growth on Atlantic services in the last few years with multiple destinations being added from its EWR hub.

DL has floundered at JFK with several on/off attempt to grow/reduce the size of the operation. I think with DL's continued cost cutting an realignment more and more services could very well be shifted to Atlanta causing DLJFK reduce in importance in the overall network. DL is clearly being squeezed on many sides, Jetblue on Florida and transcon flying, along with CO at EWR with its domestic and particularly growing international network.
Delta has not been able to achieve positive results with either NYC O&D traffic, nor using JFK as a connecting hub for the last several years.

I know there are some strong DL fans on the a.net that dont want to admit that the last vestiges of Pan Am's European operations at JFK are no longer a crown jewel for Delta. While probably also disliked by some of the same people Atlanta is becoming the airlines international traffic hub. At least it produces some postive results for the carrier something JFK continues to fail to do.

Quoting Panamair (Reply 21):B6's development at JFK has helped DL tremendously as well in terms of developing JFK into a domestic-travel-friendly airport.

Yep, B6 is DL (and all other trans-atlantic carriers') feeder airline at JFK! For example, DL, AA, and more used to have their subsidiaries feed people into JFK from places like Upstate NY. When B6 came along, the major's puddlejumpers became less attractive than taking a $49 flight with B6. AE and BEX stopped flying to JFK from Upstate around this time. Manually bringing over you luggage used to be a pain, but has gotten a lot easier with the SkyTrain.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 22):In 2004, of DL 13, European cities serviced from JFK less then 25% had positive operating margins for the company, while in comparison all but a few of the Atlanta European services had either a positive or breakeven margin for the year.

That has to do with the huge difference in markets between ATL and JFK. At ATL, DL only has competition to AMS (for now), LGW and FRA, everywhere else they either have a monopoly where they could charge what they want, plus CDG where they cooperate with AF. At JFK on the other hand, they chave competition to AMS (for now), ATH (OA), BRU (AA), FRA (LH 3x), CDG (AA), SVO (for now), IST (TK), MAD (IB) and FCO (AA). Only to NCE, BCN and VCE does DL enjoy a monopoly into NYC. And obviously, competition means lower prices. Now, if you were DL and wanted to make money off of your connecting pax (not O&D), which hub would you use? Obviously ATL, because yields to Europe are better from there, so it only is natural that routes from ATL see more frequencies.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 22):The biggest beneficiary, and possible cause of Delta slide at JFK has been Continental. The carrier has seen strong growth on Atlantic services in the last few years with multiple destinations being added from its EWR hub.

Unfortunately, you are 100% correct.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 22):DL has floundered at JFK with several on/off attempt to grow/reduce the size of the operation. I think with DL's continued cost cutting an realignment more and more services could very well be shifted to Atlanta causing DLJFK reduce in importance in the overall network.

The last 13 months prove you wrong on that account.
Within this time, DL/Song/DCI has launched new service to CHS, RSW, GSO, SJU, SDQ, STI, TXL, CLT, SDF, MLB, TLH, PNS, ORF, SAV,NAS, and added frequencies or upgraded equipment to ATL, BWI, STL, JAX, RDU, DTW, PIT, SEA and SFO. On the negative side, they discontinued SAN and DEN, which were started within these 13 months to begin with, PHX, have reduced SDQ by one frequency, and will soon drop RSW. No compare the two sides. If you still think that DL would love to dispose of its JFK gateway, you need to show good arguments.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 22):I know there are some strong DL fans on the a.net that dont want to admit that the last vestiges of Pan Am's European operations at JFK are no longer a crown jewel for Delta.

JFK hasn't been the crown jewel ever since 1996, when DL massively beefed up Europe service from ATL because of the Summer Olympics. However, JFK is still an integral part of the Delta network.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 22):While probably also disliked by some of the same people Atlanta is becoming the airlines international traffic hub.

ATL has always been Delta's main international hub, long before LAX was aqcuired from Western or JFK from Pan Am, which is a natural choice given where DL is HQ'ed.

But this is exactly the problem....DL is afraid (or not able) to compete.

They bailed on LAX because the competition was too strong.
They bailed on DFW because the competition was too strong.
They have slowly bailed on many of the transatlantic flights because the competition is too strong.
What's going to happen when B6 launches a slew of E190's against DL's CRJ's out of JFK?

The only place DL seems to be able to compete are in hubs where DL controls a majority of the traffic.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 26):But this is exactly the problem....DL is afraid (or not able) to compete.

They bailed on LAX because the competition was too strong.
They bailed on DFW because the competition was too strong.
They have slowly bailed on many of the transatlantic flights because the competition is too strong.
What's going to happen when B6 launches a slew of E190's against DL's CRJ's out of JFK?

The only place DL seems to be able to compete are in hubs where DL controls a majority of the traffic.

Exactly my point....DL is my favorite airline but the only place they flex any muscle is mostly ATL and its other two hubs in CVG and SLC. Everywhere else it seems they have no balls and run when competition turns up the heat. It bears mentioning that song has been a very good answer to B6...I will certainly grant them that. But DL is not nearly as aggressive as other carriers out there.

You seem to know what is going with Delta up in JFK in the past. I would characterize it the same way...But you're going off years where Delta had a much higher cost structure. We are smack in the middle of huge cost overhaul that does not even begin to show up until this Quarter.

This has always been a business with small margins, so it doesn't take that big a shift to turn things around.

And a little NYC factoid.

Delta has 2/3rds the number of passengers as CO in NYC. A 14.8% share compared to 22.2% for CO.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 26):They have slowly bailed on many of the transatlantic flights because the competition is too strong

Actually that is not entirely true. Some of these JFK-Europe flights were simply not making money, competition or no competition. For example, you cannot say that JFK-LYS/ARN/MUC were all dropped due to excessive competition; DL had no direct competition (U.S. or non-U.S.) from JFK in those markets at all. Also, JFK-MAN/SNN/DUB/ZRH/HEL/TXL were all dropped when there were no other U.S. carriers in the market either. Another good example is JFK-BRU. It was dropped after 9/11 but then reinstated later in 2001 after SN went bust. Since then, DL has had to contend with both CO (albeit from EWR) and AA (the latest entrant) in that market and it has remained in it till today.

Some a.netters are lamenting that DL has cut a whole lot of the flights inherited from Pan Am but that is because some of them were never profitable even with Pan Am. Since the PA acquisition, DL has added nonstops from JFK that PA never served directly such as:JFK-ATH (PA served ATH via FRA)JFK-IST (PA served IST via FRA)JFK-VCE (PA never served VCE)

At JFK all US airlines are in a much weaker position versus their European counterparts. You just do not see one US airline being the dominant carrier on this end. LH controls the business to Germany, AF controls France, BA controls UK. So much so that they can actually do a very good job of keeping business travel off routes they do not even fly on. LYS/MUC/TXL/HAM..etc. They are in tight with European travel consortiums and European corporate travel departments. CO is able to to a much better job because the are the only game in town on that side of NYC and the can single connect so many US markets.

Maybe, maybe not. But what isn't debatable is that WHERE their operation is located IS shabby beyond belief. If getting to EWR weren't more inconvenient than flying out of JFK for someone, who in the hell would want to fly out of/into the hell hole that is JFKT2 vs. EWR Terminal C, especially when you can now earn SkyMiles on CO? JFKT2 looks and feels like a third world facility... undoubtedly the most confusing, cramped, ugly and dirty international terminal we have in this country. How embarrassing.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 26):They bailed on LAX because the competition was too strong.
They bailed on DFW because the competition was too strong.
They have slowly bailed on many of the transatlantic flights because the competition is too strong.
What's going to happen when B6 launches a slew of E190's against DL's CRJ's out of JFK?

And in essence they have bailed on Orlando also. At one time Delta flew from Orlando to major cities throughout the nation, and some European destinations like Frankfurt as well. Now Delta flies RJs to medium sized Southern cities. Delta has had three incarnations at Orlando- the first an effort to relieve traffic on ATL with flights to major cities and int'l flights as well, the second with flights to places where WN was anticipated to be going like Buffalo, Albany, Providence and Nashville using Delta Express, and the third now where cities like Little Rock and Huntsville are connected to Orlando. Delta bailed on the first plan when US and UA increased their Orlando presence, even though Delta clearly had the edge being a carrier that had tradtional ties in all Florida markets (including Miami where Delta cut and ran after AA moved in, and Fort Lauderdale where Delta has only recently begun fighting back from LCC and legacy competition), and bailed on the 2nd when WN did in fact begin services to the cities mentioned. How long will the RJ flying from Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and Tampa last? What happens if Jet Blue or Air Tran decided to fly the same routes? Delta will once again bail out.

Delta's pullback from LAX was particularly sad since WA left Delta with a huge market share after the merger at LAX and lots and lots of increased traffic possibilies when integrated into Delta's larger network. At the time in the late 80s, AA wasn't even a factor at LAX, WN hadn't really pushed in hard yet and CO was pulling away from LAX. Why then did Delta fail? As FLYPNS1 stated they flinch everything any hint of competition comes, and they constantly shift their business plan more so than any other legacy carrier, even the poorly run US Airways.

I live in Manhattan, equidistant from both EWR and JFK. People flying in to do business in Manhattan are also roughly equidistant from both airports.

I can choose to fly out of EWR or JFK. I would never fly to/from Europe out of Delta's T2, and I don't understand those in a similar situation (see aforementioned parameters) who would WANT or CHOOSE to fly in/out of that hell hole over CO's Terminal C... especially now that Delta and Continental are partners. It just doesn't make sense. This isn't a hypothetical example... it's real.

Ok, so if DL is always running away with their tail between their legs, then why did DL even set up Song to compete with JB and not just give up JFK? Why are they still coexisting with Air Tran at ATL? How can they handle all the LCC competition at FLL?
I find it interesting that whenever DL pulls out of a market, it is considered just fleeing from competition and showing weekness. Ever heard of adjusting to the market to make money? Obviously, DL saw that there were markets ex JFK/MCO/LAX, where there was no money to be made. And as always, no word on positive news at other hubs. DL now serves 16 cities in Europe from ATL? Who cares, they downgraded JFK.DL now offers more flights from TPA and FLL than ever before each? Who cares, they have downgraded MCO.SLC is now bigger than it has ever been under Western? Who cares, they downgraded LAX.
It is always the same complaints over and over again.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 33):who in the hell would want to fly out of/into the hell hole that is JFKT2 vs. EWR Terminal C, especially when you can now earn SkyMiles on CO? JFKT2 looks and feels like a third world facility

Clearly, there are times when you have to cut your losses and move on, but you also have to be willing to defend some markets. So far, it seems the only markets DL will defend are ATL, SLC, CVG and to some extent the big Florida cities. And much of DL's defense of these markets relies on a flood of high-cost RJ's. The RJ's may work in some instances, but how will they stand up to B6's E190's? And will all these RJ's ever produce enough revenue so that DL can dig itself out of nearly $22 Billion dollars of debt?

DL is supposed to be a major global carrier. But it's very hard to be a major global carrier when your three hubs are ATL, SLC and CVG. Of those three, only ATL is positioned to be truly global hub. This is why you need to be able to maintain a large presence in places like JFK or LAX or SFO.

So while AA and CO are bringing in premium revenue from all their new Asian flights, DL (who has no natural Asian gateway) is left flying a bunch of low-yield tourists on high-CASM RJ's to Florida. Who's strategy do you think will work?

However the IAT and Terminal One are state of the art and as nice as Terminal C in EWR...and I would expect AA's new terminal to also be that nice or better...however the "worldport" that DL uses hasn't been upgraded since Pan Am owned it...
[quote=TWFirst,reply=33]who in the hell would want to fly out of/into the hell hole that is JFKT2 vs. EWR Terminal C, especially when you can now earn SkyMiles on CO? JFKT2 looks and feels like a third world facility... undoubtedly the most confusing, cramped, ugly and dirty international terminal we have in this country. How embarrassing.

CO's EWR Terminal C is beautiful, with fantastic shopping and facilities.
thankfully terminal 2 is only 1 out of 9 at JFK , and very easy to bash...the newly constructed terminals are as good as anything in EWR...

Quoting Tsnamm (Reply 44):owever the IAT and Terminal One are state of the art and as nice as Terminal C in EWR...and I would expect AA's new terminal to also be that nice or better...however the "worldport" that DL uses hasn't been upgraded since Pan Am owned it...

Quoting Tsnamm (Reply 44):thankfully terminal 2 is only 1 out of 9 at JFK , and very easy to bash...the newly constructed terminals are as good as anything in EWR...

Irrelevant. We're talking about Delta and its operations at JFK... not other airlines' operations or their facilities at JFK. Yes, the other terminals are great, but Delta doesn't operate from them.

Nobody picks an airport based on terminals. They pick it based on convenience. Do you really think the business traveler is saying to him/herself that maybe they can get some shopping done before they head out to NCE or TXL? The terminal is the last thing on a traveler's mind when going halfway across the world. Give me a break. DL wants their facility to appear the best it can but they are dealing with a nearly 50 year old infrastructure and a city that wants the whole bill to be on DL when the renovation topic is brought up. If/when a new terminal is built the logistics of working around the construction is a nightmare in itself.
You are definitely in the minority, but yes you have a choice. Enjoy all the choices of chocolate and alcohol for purchase you have at EWR.

Bullpucky. All things being equal.... equal convenience, comparable price.... a business traveler is going to pick EWR. Why would anyone want to wait around at that hot, smelly, cramped hell hole?? Stop making excuses just because you work for Delta. Why wouldn't the city want Delta to foot the bill for its own, exclusive terminal? JetBlue is going to pay for its new terminal. AA is paying for its new terminal.

People pick certain flights over others because of airports all the time.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 43):Clearly, there are times when you have to cut your losses and move on, but you also have to be willing to defend some markets. So far, it seems the only markets DL will defend are ATL, SLC, CVG and to some extent the big Florida cities. And much of DL's defense of these markets relies on a flood of high-cost RJ's. The RJ's may work in some instances, but how will they stand up to B6's E190's? And will all these RJ's ever produce enough revenue so that DL can dig itself out of nearly $22 Billion dollars of debt?

DL is supposed to be a major global carrier. But it's very hard to be a major global carrier when your three hubs are ATL, SLC and CVG. Of those three, only ATL is positioned to be truly global hub. This is why you need to be able to maintain a large presence in places like JFK or LAX or SFO.

So while AA and CO are bringing in premium revenue from all their new Asian flights, DL (who has no natural Asian gateway) is left flying a bunch of low-yield tourists on high-CASM RJ's to Florida. Who's strategy do you think will work?

Preach.....this is the best analysis of DL with respect to its operation that I've heard yet. The odd thing is that its been this way with two different management teams. When is someone going to take the healm that will let DL flex its muscle?

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 25):Now, if you were DL and wanted to make money off of your connecting pax (not O&D), which hub would you use? Obviously ATL, because yields to Europe are better from there, so it only is natural that routes from ATL see more frequencies.

My point exactly. Atlanta grows in prominence for DL's European network while JFK has declined. JFK currently is neither able to get the proper transfer traffic, nor enough O&D to make majority of its European routes produce positive margins.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 25):The last 13 months prove you wrong on that account.
Within this time, DL/Song/DCI has launched new service to CHS, RSW, GSO, SJU, SDQ, STI, TXL, CLT, SDF, MLB, TLH, PNS, ORF, SAV,NAS, and added frequencies or upgraded equipment to ATL, BWI, STL, JAX, RDU, DTW, PIT, SEA and SFO. On the negative side, they discontinued SAN and DEN, which were started within these 13 months to begin with, PHX, have reduced SDQ by one frequency, and will soon drop RSW. No compare the two sides. If you still think that DL would love to dispose of its JFK gateway, you need to show good arguments.

Like I said, DL continues to have on/off attempts to grow/shrink JFK over the years. Latest seems to be a Song/RJ blitz.

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 29):You seem to know what is going with Delta up in JFK in the past. I would characterize it the same way...But you're going off years where Delta had a much higher cost structure. We are smack in the middle of huge cost overhaul that does not even begin to show up until this Quarter.

Agreed cost structure has been high, however in comparison ATL has consistently out performed JFK's European ops.
Also will be interesting to see with lower cost what the overall cost comparison of Delta will be vis-a-vis its peers. The entire industry seems to be in the midst of a race to the bottom with repeated rounds of cuts.

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 29):This has always been a business with small margins, so it doesn't take that big a shift to turn things around.

Indeed painfully aware of the thin margins of our industry.

Quoting DeltaMIA (Reply 46):Nobody picks an airport based on terminals. They pick it based on convenience

True, but terminals do play into the entire travel experience. While maybe not a significant percentage some people I am sure do likely book away from Delta JFK due to facility issues. Its funny the Port Authority a few years back (pre 9/11) conducted a study comparing EWR and JFK. In it specifically made mention of the fact some people that prefer to route either via other airlines/cities to strictly avoid having to clear customs at the cramped and crowded DLJFK Worldport and then IAB facilities. EWR was overall rated much higher in the publics perception of its overall travel experience. Much of this info was used as part of the modernization efforts at JFK.
Being able to create a comfortable stress free environment on the traveler is an important element of your product. This becomes even more important for the high yield business traveler whom has less sensitivity to fares.

At the end of the day, I still stand by the contention that DL has failed to display a clear JFK strategy for the last decade.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 49):The truth of the matter is that although T3 does suck, it doesn't significantly affect Delta's bottom line.

How is it possible to draw that conclusion? I think it is much more plausable to conclude that Delta's facilities costs and opportunity costs associated with operating out of that terminal are high... thus affecting the bottom line. And in today's operating environment... ANY added costs are significant. Just look at Delta's balance sheet.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 35): My point is, if the 2 airports were equally convenient for someone, why would they choose JFK

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 45):Irrelevant. We're talking about Delta and its operations at JFK... not other airlines' operations or their facilities at JFK. Yes, the other terminals are great, but Delta doesn't operate from them

you go back and forth from DL specifically to JFK generally...my only point to you is that there are state of the art facilities at JFK, not just EWR...and choosing an AIRPORT by modern facilities JFK has just as many if not more than EWR. If your only travel options are CO or DL , then EWR is the place for you. CO just got done investing $1 billion in upgrades to terminal C...I AGREE with you that DL has not invested 1 cent in upgrading Terminal 2&3...thankfully for JFK, DL is hardly the only airline flying there.

How many people can actually say that both price and convenience are the same? To save $200 of course someone is going to pick the cheaper airport. If price is the same than someone is going to pick the more convenient airport. Rarely is there an instance where both are the equal.

How many people can actually say that both price and convenience are the same? To save $200 of course someone is going to pick the cheaper airport. If price is the same than someone is going to pick the more convenient airport. Rarely is there an instance where both are the equal.

No. People avoid/avoided connecting in places like STL and the old DTW, and flying in/out of the old MDW like the plague. Why? Because the facilities SUCK/SUCKED. I'm willing to bet people also avoid JFK Terminals 2 and 3 because they suck, especially if they have DL miles and can get them from flying Continental. If you're flying 8 hours to Europe, and you live in Brooklyn, what's an extra 30 minutes to an hour to get to EWR? Why hang out in a nightmarish dump if you don't have to?

Today marks the first time any airline has offered customers non-stop service from the U.S. Southeast to Moscow, Russia’s capital and key gateway to the 12 countries that make up the Commonwealth of Independent States. Delta is the only U.S. airline to serve Russia nonstop and also serves Moscow from its John F. Kennedy International Airport hub.

Im with Padcrasher...what on earth do you see wrong with DL's LAX facility. It is one of the most elegant terminals I've ever been in...most certainly not to mentioned in the same sentence as JFK terminal 2/3.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 55):Brooklyn, what's an extra 30 minutes to an hour to get to EWR? Why hang out in a nightmarish dump if you don't have to?

Yeah I would much rather sit in NY traffic around 4pm than sit in Terminal 3. Obviously this is your opinion and I don't see anyone else on this thread saying they would go out of their way to avoid DLJFK. Everyone has their opinion, you are just in the minority on this one.

Depends on what you are talking about. Certainly DL's Terminal 5 facility is among the nice parts of LAX and a pleasure to travel through. But DL also has gates in terminal 6, and Terminal 6 is among the worst and least pleasant to travel through in LAX.

As far as AA in BOS being on the list. There are certainly lots of problems in Terminal B, mainly lack of space and room for check in prior to security. That having been said, AA has poured tons of money into that facility over the past ten years, and it is clean and not bad looking. However they didn't modernize the old pan am section of the terminal very well. The rest of the terminal is pretty modern, especially the part where the old AA logo from many years ago hangs up. I still think they need to get rid of the parking garage in terminal B and use the space to build modern and spacious counters for US and AA as well as one central security checkpoint,but I just don't see it happening.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 61):Depends on what you are talking about. Certainly DL's Terminal 5 facility is among the nice parts of LAX and a pleasure to travel through. But DL also has gates in terminal 6, and Terminal 6 is among the worst and least pleasant to travel through in LAX.

I have flown out of both. While the 2 to 3 gates that DL has on T6 are not as nice as T5..it too doesn't belong on that list.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 61):As far as AA in BOS being on the list. There are certainly lots of problems in Terminal B, mainly lack of space and room for check in prior to security. That having been said, AA has poured tons of money into that facility over the past ten years, and it is clean and not bad looking. However they didn't modernize the old pan am section of the terminal very well. The rest of the terminal is pretty modern, especially the part where the old AA logo from many years ago hangs up. I still think they need to get rid of the parking garage in terminal B and use the space to build modern and spacious counters for US and AA as well as one central security checkpoint,but I just don't see it happening.

I agree -- AA's BOS terminal, on balance, isn't that bad. Granted, maybe it doesn't look as 'sleek' as some other terminals, but it is generally clean and modern. The ticket counter is crazy though because of the lack of space. IIRC, the next project AA is working on with MassPort is connecting the two parts of their Terminal B inside security so you don't have to go through a checkpoint to get to the end gates. Also, pre-9/11, MassPort and AA were working on extending Terminal B out and building an international arrivals facility for AA's LHR/CDG flights (now add MAN, SNN, and maybe a few others coming soon to that list!). However, when 9/11 happened, those plans were cancelled and thus AA international arrivals are still in Terminal E.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.